Have you been tempted to use a certain reading intervention with the students you work with, who are diagnosed with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (SCD), only to find that the intervention is intended exclusively for students with IQ scores of 70 and above?

I am curious to find out what happens when special education teachers, like myself, teach students with SCD, using reading interventions designed for use with the general population.  What problems would we encounter when trying to implement these interventions with students who have very low IQ?  Would we see results?

If a strategy is proven to be effective in teaching reading to struggling readers, does that make it a good option for teaching students with SCD (Allor, Mathes, Roberts, Cheatham & Otaiba, 2014, p.289)?  Allor and her colleagues carried out a long-term study of the impact of daily, intensive reading instruction on students with IQ scores in the 40-70 range, that is, students with intellectual disability (ID) or SCD.  Students in the borderline range for ID were also included, that is, students who scored between 70-80 on IQ tests (p. 288).

This was a “4-year longitudinal study examining the effectiveness of comprehensive, research-based reading instruction for students with low IQs” (Allor et al., 2014, p. 288).  Results were published in the journal Council for Exceptional Children, under the title Is Scientifically Based Reading Instruction Effective for Students with Below-Average IQs?

The intervention used was an evidence-based reading intervention, that had been proven to be effective with struggling readers, (not including those with ID), called Early Intervention in Reading (Mathes & Torgesen, as cited in Allor et al., 2014, p. 293).  As was the case for the intervention that I had been considering, for students who I work with, many students in the study did not have the skills that were identified as prerequisites for the intervention, and so additional lessons had to be created and taught before the students could begin (p. 293).

The intervention had many features considered essential in teaching students with ID, including direct instruction.  Additionally, the lessons were “highly detailed to make instruction explicit and…fast paced in order to maximize student engagement and motivation.  All skills [were] modelled and cumulative review [was] ample to ensure mastery and maintenance of skills” (p. 293).  Very “consistent, explicit, and repetitive routines, focusing on key-skills” were used (p. 303).  Individual pacing and behavioral supports were put in place, and the groups were kept small, with only one to four students to each teacher (p. 303).  A number of measures were implemented to ensure that the teachers were well trained, and that they applied the intervention with fidelity (p. 294).

When summarizing the results of the study, the authors concluded:  “students with low IQ do benefit from comprehensive reading programs that were designed for struggling readers, and readers with LD, but progress is slower” (p. 303).

Essentially, the data showed that the students did gain improved scores in reading words and passages, over the course of the study.  The verdict was that students with ID “should be provided with evidence-based reading instruction” (p. 302).

However, Allor et al. (2014) also noted that it took between one and three years for students to achieve reading scores in the average range, on Grade 1 reading passages.

They concluded the following:   “The sobering reality is that a typical student in our treatment group with an IQ of 75 (borderline range) would require 52 weeks of intervention to move from 20 words per minute (wpm) to 60 wpm on first grade passages. Thus, based on our data …students with IQs in the moderate range (40-55) would require approximately three and a half years to move from 0 wpm to 20 wpm [on first grade passages]” (italics mine, p. 302).

When looking critically at this study and the conclusions that the researchers came to, I am left questioning the time and effort invested, over the course of four years, when the results were of less than one year of growth, for the students involved.

At the same time, when working with students with SCD personally, I find it to be incredibly rewarding to see progress, especially when it is so long in coming, and to see students filled with pride as they gain new skills.  In fact, I find myself spending a disproportionate amount of time with one to five different students at the school where I work.

I celebrate their small successes with leaps of joy, and as much as I debate this is my mind, I can’t bring myself to spend my time elsewhere.  This minute growth in students with SCD, who begin to believe in themselves and who glow with satisfaction when they learn something new, is what makes my heart sing.

However, I am reminded of the advice given to me from one of my professors in my post-baccalaureate program, when I was working toward special-education certification.   Dr. Freeze advised our class that it is best practice to “seek interventions that result in more than one year’s growth per year, so that students eventually catch up” (Rick Freeze, personal communication to author, February 23, 2020).

Spending four years in working toward improved reading skills, and seeing only one year of growth, as occurred for many students in the study by Allor et al., is not defensible, Dr. Freeze would likely argue.  His advice is pasted next to my computer at work, as a reminder of how I should run my days, what I should keep as priorities, and how I should delegate my time:

“Spend your time with students who have the greatest potential for growth,” he would say.  “Put your focus where there will be the biggest pay-off.  For a student who does not progress when you do put lots of effort in, there is little difference when you do less.” (Rick Freeze, personal communication, February 17, 2017)

It is his advice that I have posted up next to my computer.  My intent is to use it like a ship’s binnacle, to steer me in the right direction, in the raging ocean of resource teaching.  However, despite the important guidance from Dr. Freeze I find that yet again, I am off-course, spending my time in a whirlpool, seeing very little change.

Recently, Dr. Freeze’s advice has been on my mind a lot.  I question my practice of spending such large periods of time each day on teaching reading to students who, in all likelihood, could still be reading at Kindergarten or Grade 1 level in three years. One of the students I work with was recently diagnosed with SCD, and is making very minimal progress.  I celebrate her successes, and that of the other five students who I work with almost daily, who are the students with the lowest reading scores by grade, in the school.

At the same time, as February moves full speed ahead, I see that these students are still reading at Kindergarten level, far below their grade placement level, despite intense, research-based intervention, and will likely not have gained even a year’s growth in reading, over the past year.

What do I do when June rolls around and my students have barely skinned their chins on Grade 1 level reading?  I can’t see myself dropping the intervention, yet I question this.  What is the right thing to do?

The other side of the story, before you decide that I must keep on with these five students into the next year and the next, I am obliged to include here, the Whole Picture.  I am sorry to say that with all this time spent on my chosen five, I have not met my goal of working with other students diagnosed with reading disability, with IQ scores above 70, and for whom my research-proven interventions are designed for.  These students might make quick progress, if given the opportunity to learn, using a method honed specifically to their needs.

It has been my intent to make time for them, but my days are taken up with the five lowest achieving students who bring me joy and challenge me, and week after week I see that I have not started my planned intervention with the students at my school diagnosed with reading disability.

What would happen if I ended my reading interventions with the five weakest readers, my intervention that has resulted in less than one year of reading growth for even one of them, over the past two years, and worked with one or two students who have a greater likelihood of making considerable gains?  Lemons et al. found that students with learning disabilities (IQ scores in the 70-80 range) made the largest gains as a result of their intervention, when compared to those with Intellectual Disabilities and autism (p. 415).

Should I change course, and focus on the students who have the highest potential for growth?  If I do, what will become of the students whose reading intervention is terminated?

I am curious to hear your thoughts.  What advice do you follow, with regards to how you spend your time as a resource / student support / literacy-lead teacher?

Do you follow any specific rules in terms of intervention length?  Does your school or school division provide guidelines as to who can receive reading intervention, and for how long?  How do you feel about the advice you have been given with regards to this?

How should resource teachers spend their time?  Which students should receive intensive reading intervention, and for how long?  How do you determine this?

What interventions have you used?  Are you careful to choose interventions that have been empirically validated to work for struggling readers without SCD?  How have you modified or adjusted the interventions to suit the students’ needs?  Please share your thoughts and experiences!

References

Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J.P. & Otalia, S. A. (2014).  Is scientifically based reading instruction effective for students with below-average IQs?  Council for Exceptional Children, 80 (3), 287-306.

Freeze, R. (2020). Precision Reading: Instructors’ Handbook (3rd Edition). Winnipeg, MB: D. R. Freeze Educational Publications (www.precisionreading.com).

Lemons, C.J., Zigmond, N, Kloo, A.M., Hill, D.R., Mrachko, A.A., Pattera, M.F., Bost, T.J. & Davis, S.M. (2013).  Performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities on early-grade curriculum-based measures of word and passage fluency.  Council for Exceptional Children, 79 (4), 408-426.